HC Deb 05 June 1873 vol 216 cc515-41

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 5 (Exemptions).

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

moved, in line 8, after "schoolmaster," to add "schoolmasters of public schools, professors, and college tutors resident in the Universities to which they belong." Previous to 1870 all graduates of the University of Oxford were exempt by charter. The exemption was not asked for as a favour to the persons themselves, but to prevent the inconvenience that might arise in the event of a schoolmaster being called away for some days in the discharge of his duties as a juryman. The privilege was asked for in behalf of those they had to teach.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 8, after the word "schoolmaster," to insert the words "schoolmasters of public schools, professors, and college tutors resident in the Universities to which they belong."—(Mr. Gathorne Hardy.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he did not oppose the Amendment out of disrespect to the persons named, but because the object of the Bill was to narrow exemptions and to bring as many as possible into the net of service, and thereby diminish as far as possible those numberless exemptions which in the sister country had gone to the extent of exempting all the persons most fitted to discharge the duties. On principle he objected to exemptions; but he had been obliged to retain many because he could not help it. He had, however, struck out two. Everyone ought to be liable to serve on a jury, except where it was plainly for the public interest he should not do so—as in the case of doctors.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, that the children at the public elementary schools had to earn certain money by attending a certain number of times, and if the masters were taken away to serve on juries the children would be unable to attend the requisite number of times to earn the capitation grant.

MR. SCOURFIELD

trusted the Government would re-consider the question of qualification, with a view of fixing a maximum and a minimum sum, and leave any question that might arise to be decided by the local authorities.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,

while admitting that the question of qualification was deserving of consideration, thought that it would be most inconvenient to narrow the area from which jurymen were obtained by increasing the number of exemptions.

Question put.

The Committee divided: — Ayes 70; Noes 55: Majority 15.

MR. HINDE PALMER

moved, in page 4, line 9, after, "officers," to insert "of both Houses of Parliament." Officers of Courts of Law and Equity were already exempted.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he would accept the Amendment if the words "during the Session of Parliament" were added.

MR. HINDE PALMER

said, he would agree to that Amendment.

MR. CRAUFURD

said, that a case might happen in which an officer of the House of Commons might be put upon a jury a week before Parliament met, and the jury continue to sit on.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT,

having voted with the majority in the division on the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Mr. G. Hardy) wished to be consistent; but he really could not see why, if this Amendment were agreed to, the Committee should not also say that Professors and college tutors were to be exempt during term time.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, any Judge would readily excuse such persons on their own application.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. MUNTZ

moved in line 12, at end of line to add "justices of the peace for any county or borough, mayors and town clerks of boroughs," on the ground that, as regarded the borough magistrates, they should not be asked to sit on a jury, and so pronounce judgment upon the very men they might have committed for trial, and also because it would be inconvenient they should be taken from their duties.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

opposed the Amendment. Justices of the peace were now not exempt by law, and as they were intelligent gentlemen he did not think they ought to be exempt. The same observation applied to the mayors of boroughs. If these exemptions were allowed they would very much lower the character of special juries. Nor did he think the mayors ought to be exempt—the boroughs might get on without them for a few days; and as to the town clerk, if he were an attorney or a solicitor, he was exempt already.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WEST (for Mr. BIRLEY)

, moved in page 4, line 14, after "same," to insert— Members of the council of any municipal borough, and every justice of the peace assigned to keep the peace therein, and the town clerk and treasurer for the time being of every such borough, so far as relates to any jury summoned to serve in such borough, or in the county where such borough is situate. This was an existing exemption, and, considering the onerous public duties discharged by those gentlemen, the exemption ought to be continued.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted,"

MR. LOPES

said, that no ground had been laid for the exemption, and there were strong reasons why it should not be granted. The professional or social status was abolished, and a great change had been made in persons called upon to serve on special juries. It was therefore essential that they should not withdraw from them any such individuals as were mentioned in the Amendment.

MR. MUNTZ

said, that the members of municipal councils did a great deal of hard work, and serious inconvenience might arise if they were compelled to serve on juries.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, the exemption might with equal propriety be extended to members of boards of guardians. They were quite as hard worked as town councillors.

MR. LEEMAN

remarked that it was not only the monthly meeting of the town council, but the attendance at committees which should be considered.

MR. WATKIN WILLIAMS

believed that no practical inconvenience would arise from making these persons servo on juries, and that if they were withdrawn the result would be greatly to impair the value of this Bill.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, there were two or three counties in which the names of the special jurors had been returned. From the Return, which he admitted was two years old, it appeared there were in Sussex 197 special jurors; in Kent, 400; in Lancashire, 1,450; and in Gloucestershire, 276. He asked the Committee to consider what would be the effect on the special jury list if they were to take out the whole of the town councils of the boroughs in Sussex, and everybody employed in municipal affairs in Lancashire, and the names of the persons proposed to be exempted by this Amendment. He would not deny that it was an invidious thing to stand against such an Amendment as this. He conceded that if it were merely a question of whether these gentlemen were not fully occupied, there was a great case for them; but if they were to go to every person who was fully occupied, and say that he was therefore exempted from serving on a jury; they would have a class of professional jurymen—people who had nothing to do, and with loose and inaccurate minds—the mere hangers-on of society—the very worst class they could possibly have for special jurors. It was because he desired to keep intelligent men on the jury that he objected to this Amendment.

MR. LEEMAN

said, the figures quoted by the Attorney General were likely to mislead. The lists to be composed under this Bill would be very much larger than those at present in force.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, that most of the gentlemen who were giving such good advice to the Government and the Committee in this matter had never served on juries; but he hoped the Attorney General would not make the clause too stringent and allow little latitude.

Question put.

The Committee divided:— Ayes 42; Noes 126: Majority 84.

MR. ASSHETON

moved, in page 4, line 14, after "public," to insert "or private." The private asylums were licensed and inspected by the magistrates, but they were supported by the friends of the inmates. There were greater reasons for the exemption of the keepers of these private asylums from service as jurors than for the exemption of the keepers of the public institutions. In the larger and public institutions there were many sub-warders having charge in the absence of the principal, but not so in the smaller and more private.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, the keepers of these private asylums were already exempted from serving as jurors, either as physicians or as surgeons.

SIR JOSEPH BAILEY

suggested that the best mode of attaining the object would be to strike out the word "public."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

assented.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

said, that as there were so many exemptions he proposed to make another, by inserting, in line 24, after "respectively," the words "also members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons actually in practice."

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that veterinary surgeons in some country districts were very scarce, and lived a great many miles apart. If, therefore, the Amendment was not adopted, he did not see how the House could look the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in the face.

MR. HENLEY

said, he hoped the Government would consider the peculiar position in which the country was now placed with reference to cattle. Heavy penalties were imposed by recent legislation with a view to prevent the spread of disease among cattle, and great risk would be incurred if a veterinary officer were not present to certify that cattle were free from disease. It should be borne in mind that in many districts properly qualified veterinary surgeons were not so plentiful as attorneys or other doctors. If the veterinary officer at a landing place for cattle happened to be absent serving on a jury, were the cattle to be kept on board ship or landed without inspection? Under the circumstances, the Government ought seriously to consider whether it would not be expedient to exempt veterinary surgeons.

MR. WYKEHAM MARTIN

said, that during the Assizes last year about 700 sheep and cattle on his own farm were attacked by disease in one week, and the loss he sustained would have been far greater had the veterinary surgeon been called away to serve upon a jury.

MR. SCOURFIELD

remarked that, although large numbers of cattle were landed in the county he represented (Pembrokeshire), there was only one properly qualified veterinary surgeon in the whole county.

MR. LOPES

said, he thought it unnecessary to make a special exemption in the case of veterinary surgeons, as under Clause 20 the Justices were empowered to revise the jury lists and make such exemptions as they might deem expedient.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he could see no ground for the exemption asked for. In the ease of these gentlemen being engaged in the discharge of public duties, they would be exempted by the magistrates, who would have power under the provisions of the Bill to revise the list, The Bill did not propose in any way to change the law with regard to the liability of this class of persons to serve, and no instance had been brought forward to show that any inconvenience had resulted from their having to serve.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

pointed out that, although these gentlemen had hitherto been legally bound to serve on juries, the Sheriffs, in the exercise of their common sense, had never summoned them. The present Bill, however, proposed to deprive the Sheriffs of their discretion in the matter.

MR. BRAND

said, he thought it was impossible for a man properly to discharge his duty as an Inspector of cattle and a juryman at the same time.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

gave way with considerable reluctance; but thought that, after the opinions which had been expressed with regard to it, it would be useless to go to a division on the question.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. DILLWYN

moved, in page 4, line 25, at end, to insert "general managers of Railway Companies."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

opposed the Amendment, being of opinion that no sufficient case had been made out for the exemption of railway managers.

MR. LOPES

referred to Clause 20 of the Bill, which empowered the Justices to strike off the list the names of those persons whose business engagements were incompatible with their serving on juries.

MR. BOWRING

observed that managers of railways appeared always to have sufficient time to attend before Committees upstairs when Railway Bills were being considered. If the Directors of Companies were able thus to spare the managers year after year from their regular avocations when their interests required it, he did not see why they should not serve on juries.

MR. LEEMAN

supported the Amendment. Under Clause 20 the lists would only come before the magistrates for revision once a year.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

supported the Amendment on the ground that the whole of the work on the railways depended on the constant attention of managers, and their absence might lead to mismanagement and accidents.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

remarked that the same arguments would apply to managers of mines and other responsible positions. Railway managers were absent from their duties through the ordinary accidents of life and attendance before Parliamentary Committees, when their places were efficiently supplied by deputies.

Amendment negatived.

MR. CRAWFORD

moved, in page 4, after line 25, to insert "the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England," with a view to their exemption. He had known three gentlemen fill these offices who during four years were not absent for a single day. He did not, however, ground the Amendment on their Bank duties, but on their duties with regard to the State. They were Commissioners of the National Debt, and he would appeal to Gentlemen who had been Chancellors of the Exchequer whether at times they did not require immediate communication with the Governor and Deputy Governor, and whether delay would not be to the public detriment?

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 25, after the word "service," to insert the words "the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England." — (Mr. Crawford.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that as the exemption was only for two persons serving a period of four years, it was hardly worth while to oppose it.

MR. ANDERSON

said, he was disappointed at this concession on the part of the Government. He objected to an exemption which would benefit the shareholders of the Bank, and believed it would have been to the public advantage if these gentlemen had been drafted away yesterday to serve on juries.

MR. CRAWFORD

said, the Amendment was based solely on the public duties of the Governor and Deputy Governor.

Question put.

The Committee divided:— Ayes 88; Noes 57: Majority 31.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

said, he thought that in accordance with the proposition of the Government in the case of officers of the House, that the exemption should not exist during the recess of Parliament, it would be proper to add to the exemption now granted that it should not operate during bank holidays, so as to make it consistent and sensible in every respect. He moved that the words "except on bank holidays" be added.

MR. CRAWFORD

said, he thought the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman were really beneath himself. He was turning a serious proposal into ridicule. The Governor and Deputy Governor might be employed on public duty during bank holidays.

Amendment negatived.

MR. RATHBONE

moved, after line 27, to insert "the members of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board." The Masters and Wardens of the Trinity House, who were exempt, were well paid, while the members of the Mersey Docks Board discharged important duties without remuneration.

MR. T. E. SMITH

said, that in the event of this exemption being allowed he should move to exempt the River Commissioners of the Tyne and Wear.

MR. GOLDSMID,

with reference to the exemption of the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, said, they were only two members of the Board, and he understood they were not present at all the meetings.

MR. CRAWFORD

said, that there were acts which only the Governor and Deputy Governor could discharge. During four years he had not been absent for a single day, except on one or two occasions from ill-health.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that a great deal might be urged in favour of this Amendment; but if this exemption were permitted every public body having a great deal of business to discharge might put forward the same claim. The Master and Wardens of the Trinity House were exempted because they had special jury work of their own to discharge in the Admiralty Court. He (the Attorney General) was very unfortunate—because if he did not give way, he was called obstinate; and if he did, he was called weak. In this instance he must stand firm.

MR. MACFIE

said, that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board was the largest trust in the world, and the members administered gratuitously a property worth £20,000,000, which was every year increasing in value.

Amendment negatived.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

moved, in page 4, line 41, after "officers," to insert Commissioners of Income Tax," a body of men not, he believed, the most popular in the kingdom. They performed a public duty, which they undertook under Act of Parliament. The proposal was no new one, as they were exempted by the Act 34 & 35 Vict. c. 103. He had no doubt the Attorney General would accede to the Amendment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he was sorry to disappoint his hon. Friend's expectations. He had considered the Amendment, but felt that there was not sufficient reason for the exemption.

MR. CRAWFORD

said, that before being elected as a Member of that House he had been exempted from serving on juries as Commissioner of Income Tax; but if at any future time he should cease to be a Member of that Assembly he had no objection to the liability.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he had placed on the Paper a somewhat similar Amendment. The Commissioners of Income Tax were by the Act of 1870 liable to serve on juries; but so much inconvenience was found to result that a special Act was brought in to exempt them.

MR. COLLINS

said, that the offer of the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford) was one which did not deserve much gratitude, because in all probability the hon. Gentleman, before ceasing to be a Member of that House, would be exempt on account of his age under another clause.

Amendment negatived.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

next moved to exempt Aldermen of London, who, he contended, ought in that respect to be placed in the same position as stipendiary magistrates and officers of the Courts. The Aldermen had many duties to perform, and they might be summoned to serve on a jury at the same time that they were called upon to serve as magistrates at the Central Criminal Court.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 42, after the word "magistrates," to insert the words "Aldermen of London." —(Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. JAMES

said, he thought it would be very advantageous to every class of the public that Aldermen should sit upon juries. There were good Aldermen and bad Aldermen. The good Aldermen found their way into the House of Commons, and were, therefore, exempt from serving upon juries. As regarded bad Aldermen, it was desirable that by serving on juries they should obtain some acquaintance with their jurisprudence. The six Aldermen who were in the House of Commons might very well take the duties of such of their Colleagues as were compelled to serve on juries.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

said, he thought that, considering the various ways in which the Aldermen of London served their fellow-citizens, it would be only fair to exempt them from liability to servo on juries.

MR. CRAWFORD

pointed out that the Aldermen were Commissioners of the Central Criminal Court, and that unless the Amendment were acceded to it might happen that an Alderman might be summoned to serve on a jury before the Court of which he was a member.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

believed that the employment of Aldermen on juries would seriously interfere with the business of the London Police Courts and the Central Criminal Court, in fact they were Judges in the latter Court.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he did not himself see any very good reason why the Aldermen of London should be exempted. He believed, however, that they could claim exemption under the 5th clause of the Bill. He had once argued this question in "another place" upon the point of the constitution of the Central Criminal Court, and he believed it was decided that the presence of Aldermen there during the trials was essential, and that the trials could not go on legally without them. His own impression was that they would come within the definition of Judges, and upon that ground he objected to the Amendment as unnecessary.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

insisted that the Amendment was necessary, not only for the Aldermen, but for the officials and clerks of their Courts.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, he thought that the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James) ought to remember that Aldermen performed their duties in Court gratuitously, while attorneys and counsel were well paid, and therefore he should not be so hard on them.

MR. J. S. HARDY

was of opinion that the Attorney General's interpretation of the words quoted by him as to Judges presiding at any trial to be decided by a jury would wholly exempt all magistrates sitting at Quarter Sessions from serving on juries.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, the exemption would apply to the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions only.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

observed that the Aldermen of the City of London were members of the Commission under which prisoners were tried at the Central Criminal Court.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, that without the presence of an Alderman the Court could not be constituted. The Lord Mayor was head of the Commission.

MR. JAMES

said, it was very desirable that this matter should be made clear, and gave Notice that at a later stage he would move that the clause should not apply to the Aldermen of London, except to those sitting as members of the Central Criminal Court.

Question put.

The Committee divided:— Ayes 17; Noes 81: Majority 64.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN (for Mr. OWEN STANLEY)

moved, in page 4, line 44, after "Members of the Executive Government," to insert "Any person who can neither understand, read, or write the English language." It was a common thing in Wales to summon jurors who could not understand the evidence of English witnesses, or the charge of an English Judge.

MR. RAIKES

said, he thought it would be more respectful to Members of the Executive Government, who were exempted from serving by the clause, that the persons mentioned in the Amendment should be placed in the next clause among those who were disqualified from acting as jurors.

MR. WATKIN WILLIAMS

objected to this exemption, and believed it would be extremely difficult to give effect to it. He had met men in Wales who could neither understand nor read nor write English, and yet who made most excellent jurymen.

MR. COLLINS

said, it appeared to him that no person should be allowed to serve on a jury in Wales who did not understand the Welsh language.

MR. LEEMAN

referred to Yorkshire, where, he said, such an exemption as that proposed would be most unjust.

MR. LOPES

asked whether the overseers were to institute an examination in order to ascertain whether or not a man really understood English, and could read and write it. Moreover, it was not improbable that many men would claim the benefit of the proposed exemption who were not actually entitled to it.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, if this exemption were to be allowed they might as well abolish altogether trial by jury in Wales.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BOWRING

asked what was meant by the words "members of the Executive Government" in the clause. They appeared very elastic, and might extend to the whole of the civil establishments, including not only the higher officials, but all clerks, and even temporary writers.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he proposed to meet that criticism by the terms of the Interpretation Clause.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

moved in page 5, line 3, to leave out "seventy" and insert "sixty." Everyone would admit that it was desirable a jury should be composed of men in full health, and capable of discharging the duties before them. It seemed to him that 60 was a sufficient age for people to be compelled to discharge such arduous duties, and that persons in their declining years were entitled to exemption.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 3, to leave out the word "seventy," and insert the word "sixty."—(Mr. B. N. Fowler.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'seventy' stand part of the Clause."

THR ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, the exemption was absolute at 70, but there was nothing to prevent a person from claiming to be exempted at 65. There were many men between 65 and 70 in full possession of their faculties mentally and bodily, and who at that time of life would be particularly useful as jurors. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

MR. LEEMAN

suggested that the provision as to age should be struck out altogether, as it would be exceedingly difficult, in large parishes especially, for the overseers to ascertain whether a man was 70.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

hoped that the Amendment would be pressed.

MR. GREGORY

was also in favour of the exemption above 60 years of age.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he did not think that the labours of a juror were generally very heavy, and submitted that the line which he had already drawn in the clause was a fair and reasonable one.

Question put.

The Committee divided: — Ayes 54; Noes 18: Majority 36.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 (Men of 65 years of age and upwards to be exempt, if exemption is claimed in time).

MR. GREGORY

moved in page 5, line 24, at end add— and any man who shall be liable to serve in any borough or county in respect of his place of business, and who shall have a separate place of residence, shall be exempt from service in respect of such place of residence, if his claim to exemption be in like manner duly made and established."—(Mr. Gregory.)

A man ought not to be liable to serve twice. His discharging double duty would be inconsistent with the principle of the Bill.

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he could not accede to the Amendment. If he were to do so, it would almost destroy the jury panel in the City of London, because all who resided out of London would elect to serve where the work was likely to be the lightest. If a man had two qualifications he ought to be liable to serve for both.

MR. GREGORY

said, his Amendment would only give a man a right to say that being on the City list he was not liable for the country. A business man should only be called upon to serve where his business was carried on.

MR. LEEMAN

supported the Amendment. It was not reasonable to call upon a man to perform double service as a juryman, when the two summonses might sometimes clash.

MR. WEST

said, that a man having two qualifications ought to be liable to serve on both.

MR. LOPES

considered the Amendment a very reasonable one. It was unfair to call upon persons to discharge the same duties in a borough and also in a county.

MR. GREGORY

said, his Amendment was confined to persons in business, and was not intended to apply to persons of independent means having qualifications in different places.

MR. WHEELHOUSE

said, he had known instances where persons had been summoned to appear at two different places on the same day and hour.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, the answer to one was that he was engaged on the other.

MR. REED

said, that without the Amendment persons of Yorkshire and Lancashire having business premises in London would be liable to serve in London as well as where they resided.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that a man having two qualifications was no reason why he should not be liable to serve in both places.

Question put.

The Committee divided: — Ayes 16; Noes 46: Majority 30.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 (Juries in particular places).

SIR JOHN HAY

called attention to the wording of the clause. As it stood, although the jurors of a borough would be exempt from serving at the county quarter sessions, the justices would not. Justices who were not eligible to serve as jurors at the borough general or quarter sessions, and who had to attend the county general or quarter sessions as justices, would be liable to serve there as jurors. It had been suggested to him that the clause should be amended by inserting the words "burgesses of" in place of the words "jurors in." As the law now stood, "jurors in every borough in and for which a separate court of quarter sessions shall be holden, so far as relates to any jury summoned for the trial of any issues joined in any court of general quarter sessions of the peace in the county wherein such borough is situate" were exempt.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, the term "burgess" would not meet what the hon. Baronet had in view. He would undertake to meet the objection by inserting proper words in a subsequent stage of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WEST

said, that the object of the clause was to exempt jurymen in boroughs who had to serve at borough sessions from being called upon to act at the county quarter sessions. He did not object to jurymen serving in boroughs being relieved from serving in counties; but the Bill provided no machinery for having separate lists for these separate services.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, there were certain boroughs which had limited jurisdictions of their own, and where jurors were called upon four times a-year to serve in these boroughs it was fair and reasonable that they should be exempted from performing analogous duties in counties. The Sheriff would be required in all cases to summon juries, within the jurisdiction of the authority from whom he received the precedent. The Bill did not interfere with either the limited jurisdiction, or what he might call for the purposes of this Bill the more unlimited jurisdictions now existing.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 10 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 29 (Making out lists in the City. Secondary to issue precepts.)

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

moved the rejection of the clause. In the City there were 98 or 99 parishes, and the lists were at present made out by the authorities of the different wards—by the clerks of the 25 wards. By the present Bill a new machinery would be set up and a considerable expense incurred. At present the City was treated as one parish; but the present Bill would resuscitate the several parishes. There was no reason for altering the existing machinery and throwing an additional duty on the vestry clerks. The clause did not apply to any place outside the City, and he proposed its omission with the view of hereafter inserting a clause providing that the Act should not affect the present mode of forming the jury list.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he could not agree to the proposal, which was intended to except the City of London from the operation of the Bill and leave the City exactly in its present state There were nominally 93 parishes, but by co-operation and amalgamation the number had been considerably reduced, and the number of persons to be employed under the provisions of the Bill would not much exceed the present number. The object of the clause was to assimilate the condition of the City to that of the large towns and the rest of England, and he saw no reason why the City should remain in its present peculiar position.

MR. LOPES

observed that there could be no doubt that the present state of things in the City of London was exceptional, and no reason had been shown for perpetuating that exceptional state of things. The case made for the City of London had been fully considered by the Select Committee, and the proposal made by the hon. Alderman had been rejected by a large majority.

MR. R. N. FOWLER,

believing that the proposed change would create many difficulties and inconveniences, supported the Amendment.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, he thought it would be impossible to make the City of London like the other parts of England, and was of opinion that the affairs of the City were very well managed. The lists wore better made up, to his knowledge, in the City of London than in Middlesex or Hertfordshire.

MR. JAMES

complained that the commercial juries had been getting worse and worse in London every year. The Select Committee which had lately sat had tried to trace that fact to its source. They found that the ward clerks selected these juries, and the clerks, he believed, were themselves appointed by the Court of Aldermen. The Committee had come to the conclusion that it was better to place the making up of the lists in the hands of the overseers. The hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence), however, clung to the ward clerks; but it was impossible to understand why the City should have the distinction of having bad juries.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE,

in reply, attributed the unpleasant experience which hon. and learned Gentlemen had had of London juries to the difficulty they had found in convincing them in cases where the juries were really in the right. Allowance was always made in the City for the inconveniences and mortifications encountered by gentlemen of the long robe. This was the first time he had heard an imputation thrown on the returning officers of the City of London. The charge was a very grave one, and he denied that the lists were selected from the worst citizens in the City of London. He agreed, however, with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. James), when he stated that the lists had depreciated. The Bill of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Viscount Enfield) had deteriorated the juries, and it would go on deteriorating them unless some alteration was made. He contended that the lists for the City of London had been made up with great impartiality. The City in this matter was asking for no privilege, but for the retention of satisfactory and inexpensive machinery.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: — Ayes 97; Noes 19: Majority 78.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 30 to 40, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 41 (Corrections of the lists both in the city and elsewhere to be made every three months).

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

moved, in page 12, line 32, after "lists," to leave out "for the city of London and elsewhere," and insert "elsewhere than in the city of London." It would be impossible for the overseers to fulfil the duties cast upon them by this clause.

MR. LEEMAN

said, he thought that in many large parishes it would be impossible to carry out the provision.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

also thought that the proposed plan could not be carried out, and that persons would not be found to become overseers if so many extra duties were attached to the office.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

upon reflection, agreed that perhaps the clause would cast too heavy a burden upon overseers in populous places. His object had been to keep the lists as clear as possible of the names of persons who would not appear when summoned. He would consent to the clause being negatived, and would probably bring up a new clause upon the Report.

Clause negatived.

Clause 42 agreed to.

Clause 43 (Overseers and vestry clerks to be paid for making out the lists).

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

moved, in page 13, line 29, after "the" to insert "Secondary of the city of London," his object being to afford the Aldermen an opportunity of awarding that functionary remuneration for the additional duties that would be cast upon him by this Bill if they thought it advisable to do so.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

objected to this proposal, because he did not think that the Secondary should be placed in a better position than he was at present, or than the town clerk, who performed similar duties in respect to those lists.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

said, the Bill would impose additional duties upon the Secondary, and it was only fair that he should be paid for them. It appeared to him that hon. Members did not understand how justice was administered in the City of London.

MR. JAMES

observed, that the hon. Alderman was quite right in saying that they could never understand how justice was administered in the City of London, inasmuch as it was the only city in which 26 Aldermen administered the law.

MR. J. LOWTHER

asked the hon. Member for the City of London whether he was prepared to say what the salary of the functionary referred to was?

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

was unable to say; but he knew that the fees of the Secondary had been greatly reduced by the Act which abolished imprisonment for debt.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, that the late Secondary received about £1,000 a-year; whereas the present officer was only paid about £500 to £600 a-year, chiefly from fees.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 44 agreed to.

Clause 45 (Overseer and vestry clerks to present their accounts to the courts of revision).

MR. MAGNIAC

said, he had an Amendment to propose of which he had not given Notice; but, nevertheless, he hoped that the Government would accede to it. He thought that if there was one charge which ought to be borne by the Imperial Revenue it was the charge incurred for the due administration of justice; and with that object he proposed in page 14, line 8, after the word "from," to omit "out of the first moneys thereafter to be collected for the relief of the poor in the several parishes," in order to insert "from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, as provided in respect of prosecutions by 31st and 32nd of Victoria."

THE CHAIRMAN

informed the hon. Member that a proposal throwing a charge on the public revenue required the Queen's consent to be signified, and it was also requisite that the House should go into Committee for the purpose.

MR. MAGNIAC

said, he hoped that, under these circumstances, the Attorney General would consent to postpone the clause.

MR. GOLDNEY

suggested to the hon. Member for St. Ives, that he might effect his object by proposing to omit the latter part of the clause, leaving the Government to find the means to defray the expenses to be incurred under the Bill.

MR. MAGNIAC,

acceding to the suggestion, moved to leave out all the words after "from" in the eighth line to the end of the clause.

MR. MUNTZ

considered that the question raised -by the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Magniac) was far too serious to be discussed without due Notice. Moreover, he thought it would be a great pity if the question of the expense of preparing the jury lists under this Bill were allowed to enter into the consideration of the important subject of local taxation when all these expenses had hitherto been defrayed out of the poor-rate.

MR. W. ORMSBY-GORE

protested against the Imperial Revenue, to which Ireland was an important contributor, being called upon to pay the expenses in connection with jury lists in England alone.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

could not help hoping that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Magniac) would, upon consideration, not press his Amendment. The cost of preparing jury lists and all the expenses connected with juries were a purely local matter; and further, they constituted a charge that had hitherto been borne without any question whatever by the different localities of the country. This matter had been expressly considered by the Select Committee, which was unanimously of opinion that it would be most unfit in a Bill of this kind to change the incidence of a charge of this nature from counties and parishes to the Imperial Exchequer.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he thought the House, after its Resolution of last Session respecting local taxation, had a right to expect long before this definite proposals from the Government. It was natural, under these circumstances, that an hon. Member interested should take the first opportunity of raising the question.

MR. LOPES

said, the Attorney General had not stated the case correctly. Up to the present time, the overseers had been paid the pocket expenses incurred, but had not been entitled to receive remuneration for preparing the jury list. No doubt they ought to be remunerated; but the remuneration ought not to be charged on local taxation.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

replying to the statement of the Attorney General that this was an eminently local charge, said, that anyone who was acquainted with the Northern Circuit must be aware that the cause list of Liverpool was anything but local. The question was one deserving the consideration of the Government when they came to investigate what charges were local and what Imperial.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

remarked that seeing by the Bill as it now stood 95 new officers, at great expense, would be required for the City of London, he must support the Amendment.

MR. MAGNIAC

explained that his object was to prevent any fresh charge being laid upon the poor-rate. He must go to a Division.

MR. CRAUFURD

said, as a Scotch Member he supported the Resolution of last year with regard to local taxation, and he hoped this Committee and also the House would for the future resist any further imposition of local taxation until the Government had thought fit to give effect to the Resolution of last year.

MR. GLADSTONE

protested against a division being taken upon such a question without Notice. The hon. Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth) regarded the Amendment as a Vote of Censure on the Government for not having acted on the Resolution of last year. Would it be satisfactory to deal with the large question of local taxation by allowing small charges of £2,000 or £3,000 to be thrown on the Imperial Revenue, while the main grievance remained untouched? What would be more contemptible than for the Government to endeavour to stave off the obligation resting upon it by making small concessions? The hon. Member for North Hants was ready to take credit for the reduction of the income tax and sugar duties. Was his financial genius equal to the task of making these reductions and at the same time relieving local burdens by the same means? It was untrue the Government had overlooked the Resolution of last year. In deference to the feelings of the House the Government had announced that it was prepared to deal with local taxation, and had described the order in which they thought it should be dealt with. Proposals were now before the House relating to matters which must first be disposed of. Was it the duty of the Government to overlook that which was necessary for the effectual dealing with the question merely to make a show of prompt obedience to the Resolution? The Government had gone to great lengths in committing themselves to the proposed transfer of local taxation to Imperial funds. The scheme of the Government would involve a large financial displacement, and the reconsideration of the principles which regulate the distribution of taxation between real and personal property, and between property and labour. It was not fair, nor was it a wise and prudent recommendation to make to the Committee that, in lieu of raising the issue directly in a straightforward manner, a Motion of this kind should be made which was totally insignificant with regard to the amount it involved, and which, if adopted, could have no other effect than that of neutralizing, or of destroying altogether, the attempt of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General to amend the state of the law with reference to juries. Whatever was done should be done broadly and fairly. The question now raised was a very important one, and he hoped that the Committee would not adopt the Motion of his hon. Friend. If the House saw any desire on the part of the Government to shrink from dealing with the subject which it had greatly at heart, it could inflict upon them any mark of its displeasure which it thought fit. A Motion of this kind was totally unsatisfactory, and the only effect of it would be to leave the present measure without any provision for meeting expenses in themselves proper and reasonable, to cripple a useful Bill, and to discourage an energetic, laborious, and well-considered effort to improve the jury system.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

observed that, as a matter of fact, he did object to the remission of the sugar duty, and if he had had an opportunity he would not only have given his voice but his vote against it. He contended that any Gentleman who took part in the division of last year was justified, when a new charge was proposed, in telling the Government that they were proceeding in a course which was objected to by the majority of the House. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Magniac) was moderate and reasonable. As for the Bills now before the House, they quite failed to carry out the Resolution of last year, and it seemed to him as if the subject was relegated to an indefinite future. He would certainly support the hon. Member if he went to a division, or if the Committee wished that Progress should be reported he would not object.

MR. BOUVERIE

said, he hoped the Committee would be cautious before adopting any such decision as it was invited to take by the hon. Member for St. Ives. Who could have thought that on a Bill dealing with the jury laws the question of local taxation would be raised? The Committee would not wish that a question of such importance should be decided, as it were, by a snatch division. His hon. Friend had given no Notice of his Amendment, and was the Committee to anticipate what ought to be its deliberate judgment in the way now proposed by the hon. Member? Nothing could be more unwise or imprudent.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, he did not think the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) had looked at the matter fairly. The question before the Committee at present was this: when the Government were bringing forward a scheme for the improvement of the judicial arrangements of the country, were the expenses to be thrown on the rates? What the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Magniac) proposed was, that the matter should be dealt with in the same way as the expenses that would arise under the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill would be dealt with. What he contended for was that no new charges should be thrown on the local rates.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, that a very important issue had been raised upon a very small matter. It would be monstrous if the House were to attempt to dispose of the subject of local taxation on a point such as this.

MR. HENLEY

said, it was proposed to give to every petty sessions, without any directions whatever, the power to make an order on the rates. There ought to be some provision to secure at least uniformity in a county, but there was nothing of the kind. He trusted that the Government would re-consider the question.

MR. MAGNIAC

said, this charge was shown, and could not be denied, to be a new one; and it was on that account he objected to it most strongly. As the Bill would not come into operation until the 1st of November, ample time would be given for bringing the charge on the Imperial funds. It was said by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government that he had not given Notice; but that had arisen from circumstances over which he had no control. Still, he felt it would be pressing unduly an important question on the House without Notice if he insisted on a division. He would, therefore, ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. CRAUFURD

said, he hoped the Committee would resist the imposition of any new local tax, unless the Government consented to report Progress.

Mr. MONK

said, he did not think they should snap a division on an important question. He did not see why the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Magniac) should not be allowed to withdraw his Amendment.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

observed that there were many inconveniences attending the practice of taking a division without Notice, and among them was this—that many hon. Gentlemen could not know what they were voting about. Everybody seemed to think that the 46th clause applied only to a single payment, for making out the jury lists. But if hon. Members turned to the 45th section, they would see that two payments were contemplated. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: That has been struck out.] That made no difference. The proposal was that the charge at present made for expenses incurred should be transferred from the local rate to the Consolidated Fund. The object was not a small sum; but to make a ground-work on which a hold could be made for the future. This was a fair object, but not one which ought to be achieved without Notice. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be allowed to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he understood the Amendment was limited to what had been laid down as a new charge. If there was any dispute about it, and if the Government was in the least taken by surprise, they should move to report Progress. He had not the slightest disposition to snap a division. The Committee should vote on the question with full knowledge.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

contended if there had been the slightest intention to raise the question of local taxation on this Bill it should have been raised on the 43rd section. He put it to the candour of hon. Gentlemen opposite whether it was fair to come to a conclusion wholly inconsistent with the earlier part of the scheme, which had been agreed to without opposition.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that as the Committee had got into a dilemma he thought the best course to pursue would be to report Progress, so that the matter should be considered when there was a larger attendance. He therefore moved that the Chairman report Progress.

Moved, "That the Chairman do report Progress."—(Mr. Assheton Cross.)

MR. LOPES

said, he could not agree with the Attorney General that the present clause was not the one on which this question ought to be raised.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the Government would not at so late an hour resist the Motion for reporting Progress if the Committee desired to carry it. In the interval, however, before the consideration of the Bill was resumed, hon. Gentlemen opposite would do well to consider whether the proposal supplied or constituted a form in which they wished to assert the principle which they entertained with regard to local taxation. As to the Amendment, his hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Magniac) put upon it the construction he desired it to boar—namely, that it was a protest and a warning. It would have been far better if his hon. Friend (Mr. Magniac) had been allowed to withdraw his Amendment. The intention of his hon. Friend was that the charge should be transferred to the Consolidated Fund. With respect to that the Government said the question of local charges ought not to be dealt with in this manner. The other branch of the question was, that there was a new charge created, which it was proposed should be thrown on the Consolidated Fund. This charge was the remuneration to the overseers for their trouble, and this charge, it was proposed by the Amendment, was to be fixed by the local authority.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, the proposition hardly amounted to this, as the first Amendment had been withdrawn.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the amount must be paid from either local or Imperial funds. The Committee had constituted this charge in Clauses 43 and 44, and they had committed to the local authority the power of determining the charge which was now sought to be thrown on the Consolidated Fund. If the local authorities were not to pay from local funds they must come upon the Imperial funds.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, that if the Amendment had been carried, no charge on the Consolidated Fund was of necessity entailed; but these three clauses must have been altered on the Report.

MR. MAGNIAC

said, that the Prime Minister having asserted that he had only moved his Amendment as a protest, he wished to explain that he intended it to the best of his ability to be an effective protest. The only reason why he withdrew his Amendment was that it had been made without Notice.

MR. PELL

said, he thought it just as improper that the local authorities should fix the charge on the local rates as that they should fix the charges to come out of the Consolidated Fund.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, unless objection were taken at the time when local taxation was proposed, those who wished to relieve local burdens were told they were too late. This charge was part of the administration of justice.

MR. J. LOWTHER

asked when the Bill would be taken again?

MR. GLADSTONE

said, Monday was to be given to the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill, and on Tuesday the House would begin the consideration of the Local Taxation Bills. He was afraid that the present measure must now stand over until the more urgent Business was got rid of.

Motion agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday next.